If you woke up in Russia or China, that could explain your “unique” definition of an ex post facto law.
Here in the United States, that term has always meant passing a new law to punish past behavior, which clearly isn’t the case here.
He’s being punished for a new violation. What changed is the penalty calculation for that new violation. If he had not committed a new violation, he would still have his license.
This recidivist driver managed to go just over a year without being convicted of an offense. That’s not particularly impressive, given his past record.
Do we know he really ran the sign? Only in the sense that we know he was cited, prosecuted, and convicted; and that nowhere does he claim he wasn’t guilty, only that the punishment seems excessive to someone with an abysmal driving record.
I think this joe kids a moronic mommys boy no doubt..but in my case its different i dont have many traffic violations but i lost my lic.years ago and got an operating after suspension trying to keep my job an stay in school..i got another one the same year..now four years 11 months and 2 weeks into life without any issues..i get pulled over and hauled to jail…deal is i updated my address the day i moved but the state works at its speed and i lost my lic for an unpaid fine from 2002 in which wasnt a driving fine at all…I said well my bad..untill a month later when im getting nailed with a 3yr suspension..now that joe kid he deserves it but im not running stop signs..i get to work without moms help or getting tickets so i say theres to sides to the law
Charles has to be a troll as his statements are so off base that one has to see he is baiting people for an argument. Hey Chuck — driving is so not a right in this country or anywhere in the world, it is strictly and only a priviledge. When one abuses that priviledge then they must be spanked and spanked hard. This moron deserved what he got.
Wow! What a response I’m very happy to see there is still some passion in America. Now, if we could just get some of you to open yor eyes and your mind just a wee bit more. Read websters definition of priviledge and right. If you still feel the same as before, well, God bless you.
This is not about one individual it’s about us as a people. No one has said this young fella should not be punished. The question is what is adequate punishment. Ten infractions is an arbitrary number. What if they made it five or two? Which they could do. Would you still feel the same as before? I guarantee you, each and every one of you violate some traffic law almost every time you get behind the wheel of a motorized vehicle.
A few years back I was a deputy sheriff in a small town. One day a few citizens, such as yourself, came to the sheriff to complain about the speeding traffic in their neighborhood. They insisted he do something to protect their small children or his job was at risk. Naturally he wanted to keep his job, so he sent a couple of deputies to run radar in the neighborhood. The neighborhood residents quickly discovered that they were being ticked more often than the outsiders. This was not a part of their plan. They did not expect us to cite members of the neighborhood. They only wanted us to cite the other guys. It was amazing how quickly they became disinterested in the safety of their children once they discovered they would be punished for their unlawful actions. Of course the sheriff was now politely asked to stop the radar checks. Be careful what you wish for, you may just get it!
I bet you’ll all squeel ex post facto when “they come for you,” for illegaly crossing that painted gouge, driving and talking on your cell phone, cutting off another driver, etc…
Did you know in some states you could be arrested for driving while impaired if you have one after dinner drink and are involved in an accident?
I could give you all ten tickets in less than two weeks and I’ll bet some of them would be major violations. Many of you think that the law doesn’t apply to you because you have not been held accountable for your transgressions. Yhink about that the next time you feel like being judgmental
I knew you couldn’t honestly believe what you were typing.
As far as whether I or anyone else breaks the law each time we get behind the wheel is irrelevant. I think you’re missing the fact that mature adults actually take responsibility for their actions, this, as I said earlier, is where any “right” comes from.
You earn the right to drive by being of a certain age, passing requisite courses and tests and OBEYING THE LAWS – these are your responsibilities.
If you fail to live up to your responsibilities – YOU LOSE THE RIGHT!
Is it, then, really a “right” as it is being portrayed in these postings?
How do you feel about amnesty laws (the other side of ex post facto laws)? Charles Manson and 3 others were sentenced to death, but the California Supreme Court struck down the death penalty before the sentence could be carried out. Based on your logic – he should have still been put to death since the crime and sentencing occurred before the law was changed (I think he should have been, but that’s beside the point also). I’ll await your response.
You can’t have it both ways.
Remember, had he not gotten a ticket for another couple of years, this would not have been an issue. The law stated that if a person had a certain number of tickets in a certian amount of time, this is the penalty. Knowing that didn’t change the behavior (didn’t cause him to make a different choice).
Talking on the cell phone in the car should be illegal anyway, but if that did become a law tomorrow and I was seen talking on the phone today – I wouldn’t get a ticket, as long as I’m not using the cell phone while driving tomorrow or afterwards.
Simple answer to the drinking and driving thing – don’t drink and then drive. You see, these are all CHOICES people make.
It’s a choice whether or not you speed, use the cell phone, drink and drive, run stop signs, or whatever; just be willing to accept responsibility for the consequences.
I’m not judging this guy, this discussion is about the correct application of the law. So I say, would you have erased his slate and let him begin fresh? Be careful how you answer and what you ask for – this could be the guy that t-bones your child at a stop sign. Past performance is indicative of future results.
I love your this line in your last paragraph, “Many of you think that the law doesn’t apply to you because you have not been held accountable for your transgressions.” What a rediculous statement; if I speed and get caught, I expect to get a ticket – see, I know the law applies to me.
I haven’t read all the comments but this guy is clearly a habitual offender and clearly hasn’t got the message that his driving behavior is a hazard to the public. Maybe three years isn’t long enough!
I DON’T KNOW WHO’S WORSE; HIM OR HIS MOTHER..I MEAN..DUH..YOUR DAMN SON DRIVES LIKE THIS AND YOU DEFEND HIM. THAT WAAS 10 TIMES HE COULD;VE KILLED SOME INNOCENT PERSON (S) OR LESS IMPORTANT ((SIC) HIMSELF
IF HE AND HIS MOTHER THINK NOTHING OF PAYING OVER $3000. FOR MOVING VIOLATIONS; THAT IN ITSELF IS AN ABSOLUTE DISRESPECT FOR THE LAW AND FOR ALL THE INNOCENTS WHO ARE AT THIS LOSER’S MERCY
THE STATE SHOULD COMPELL HIM TO POST A $25,000 BOND WHICH HE FORFEITS..TOGETHER WITH HIS OPEARTORS LICENSE SHOULD HE COMMIT ANOTHER MOVING VIOLATION..AFTER HE SITS OUT HIS 3 YEAR SUSPENSION
I have had a Maine license since 2002 and am 22 years old. My driving record isn’t good, however the reason Tina’s Law went into effect for me is absolutely bogus. I had two Operating after Suspension violations prior to my third one which I completely own up to and I know it was stupid. However, after the second time I got caught I realized I needed to stop driving like an *** or I would hurt myself or even worse someone else. So I wasn’t speeding like I normally would have, I was really starting to realize I needed to be responsible. When I moved out west I traded in my Maine license for a CA license.. and didn’t think anything of it. Turns out I was suspended out of NH for not paying a fine and I wasn’t allowed to be issued a license from ANY state. Why CA issued me one and didn’t tell me anything otherwise I have no idea. So I drove from CA to NH (yes, that far) with NO license…?! So ironically 10 minutes after crossing the NH border I get pulled over for a tail light being out, BOOM there’s the third operating after suspension right there which is what triggered my 3 year license loss. How is that fair at all? No one EVER notified me at any address I had that I wasn’t allowed to drive.
My heart goes out to the family of Tina Turcotte, I know how hard it is to loose a loved one. But my case is 10 times different than that of Scott Hewitt, the man who killed her. (Who had I believe somewhere around 40 offenses on his record) I’ve never once caused a car accident, or put someone elses life at risk behind the wheel.
So my point is that this law needs to be re-evaluated so that they can prosecute those who DESERVE to have no license.
We have updated our privacy policy to be more clear and meet the new requirements of the GDPR. By continuing to use our site, you accept our revised Privacy Policy.
If you woke up in Russia or China, that could explain your “unique” definition of an ex post facto law.
Here in the United States, that term has always meant passing a new law to punish past behavior, which clearly isn’t the case here.
He’s being punished for a new violation. What changed is the penalty calculation for that new violation. If he had not committed a new violation, he would still have his license.
This recidivist driver managed to go just over a year without being convicted of an offense. That’s not particularly impressive, given his past record.
Do we know he really ran the sign? Only in the sense that we know he was cited, prosecuted, and convicted; and that nowhere does he claim he wasn’t guilty, only that the punishment seems excessive to someone with an abysmal driving record.
Charles, I’m glad you are not in charge.
I think this joe kids a moronic mommys boy no doubt..but in my case its different i dont have many traffic violations but i lost my lic.years ago and got an operating after suspension trying to keep my job an stay in school..i got another one the same year..now four years 11 months and 2 weeks into life without any issues..i get pulled over and hauled to jail…deal is i updated my address the day i moved but the state works at its speed and i lost my lic for an unpaid fine from 2002 in which wasnt a driving fine at all…I said well my bad..untill a month later when im getting nailed with a 3yr suspension..now that joe kid he deserves it but im not running stop signs..i get to work without moms help or getting tickets so i say theres to sides to the law
Charles has to be a troll as his statements are so off base that one has to see he is baiting people for an argument. Hey Chuck — driving is so not a right in this country or anywhere in the world, it is strictly and only a priviledge. When one abuses that priviledge then they must be spanked and spanked hard. This moron deserved what he got.
Wow! What a response I’m very happy to see there is still some passion in America. Now, if we could just get some of you to open yor eyes and your mind just a wee bit more. Read websters definition of priviledge and right. If you still feel the same as before, well, God bless you.
This is not about one individual it’s about us as a people. No one has said this young fella should not be punished. The question is what is adequate punishment. Ten infractions is an arbitrary number. What if they made it five or two? Which they could do. Would you still feel the same as before? I guarantee you, each and every one of you violate some traffic law almost every time you get behind the wheel of a motorized vehicle.
A few years back I was a deputy sheriff in a small town. One day a few citizens, such as yourself, came to the sheriff to complain about the speeding traffic in their neighborhood. They insisted he do something to protect their small children or his job was at risk. Naturally he wanted to keep his job, so he sent a couple of deputies to run radar in the neighborhood. The neighborhood residents quickly discovered that they were being ticked more often than the outsiders. This was not a part of their plan. They did not expect us to cite members of the neighborhood. They only wanted us to cite the other guys. It was amazing how quickly they became disinterested in the safety of their children once they discovered they would be punished for their unlawful actions. Of course the sheriff was now politely asked to stop the radar checks. Be careful what you wish for, you may just get it!
I bet you’ll all squeel ex post facto when “they come for you,” for illegaly crossing that painted gouge, driving and talking on your cell phone, cutting off another driver, etc…
Did you know in some states you could be arrested for driving while impaired if you have one after dinner drink and are involved in an accident?
I could give you all ten tickets in less than two weeks and I’ll bet some of them would be major violations. Many of you think that the law doesn’t apply to you because you have not been held accountable for your transgressions. Yhink about that the next time you feel like being judgmental
Charles,
I knew you couldn’t honestly believe what you were typing.
As far as whether I or anyone else breaks the law each time we get behind the wheel is irrelevant. I think you’re missing the fact that mature adults actually take responsibility for their actions, this, as I said earlier, is where any “right” comes from.
You earn the right to drive by being of a certain age, passing requisite courses and tests and OBEYING THE LAWS – these are your responsibilities.
If you fail to live up to your responsibilities – YOU LOSE THE RIGHT!
Is it, then, really a “right” as it is being portrayed in these postings?
How do you feel about amnesty laws (the other side of ex post facto laws)? Charles Manson and 3 others were sentenced to death, but the California Supreme Court struck down the death penalty before the sentence could be carried out. Based on your logic – he should have still been put to death since the crime and sentencing occurred before the law was changed (I think he should have been, but that’s beside the point also). I’ll await your response.
You can’t have it both ways.
Remember, had he not gotten a ticket for another couple of years, this would not have been an issue. The law stated that if a person had a certain number of tickets in a certian amount of time, this is the penalty. Knowing that didn’t change the behavior (didn’t cause him to make a different choice).
Talking on the cell phone in the car should be illegal anyway, but if that did become a law tomorrow and I was seen talking on the phone today – I wouldn’t get a ticket, as long as I’m not using the cell phone while driving tomorrow or afterwards.
Simple answer to the drinking and driving thing – don’t drink and then drive. You see, these are all CHOICES people make.
It’s a choice whether or not you speed, use the cell phone, drink and drive, run stop signs, or whatever; just be willing to accept responsibility for the consequences.
I’m not judging this guy, this discussion is about the correct application of the law. So I say, would you have erased his slate and let him begin fresh? Be careful how you answer and what you ask for – this could be the guy that t-bones your child at a stop sign. Past performance is indicative of future results.
I love your this line in your last paragraph, “Many of you think that the law doesn’t apply to you because you have not been held accountable for your transgressions.” What a rediculous statement; if I speed and get caught, I expect to get a ticket – see, I know the law applies to me.
I haven’t read all the comments but this guy is clearly a habitual offender and clearly hasn’t got the message that his driving behavior is a hazard to the public. Maybe three years isn’t long enough!
I DON’T KNOW WHO’S WORSE; HIM OR HIS MOTHER..I MEAN..DUH..YOUR DAMN SON DRIVES LIKE THIS AND YOU DEFEND HIM. THAT WAAS 10 TIMES HE COULD;VE KILLED SOME INNOCENT PERSON (S) OR LESS IMPORTANT ((SIC) HIMSELF
IF HE AND HIS MOTHER THINK NOTHING OF PAYING OVER $3000. FOR MOVING VIOLATIONS; THAT IN ITSELF IS AN ABSOLUTE DISRESPECT FOR THE LAW AND FOR ALL THE INNOCENTS WHO ARE AT THIS LOSER’S MERCY
THE STATE SHOULD COMPELL HIM TO POST A $25,000 BOND WHICH HE FORFEITS..TOGETHER WITH HIS OPEARTORS LICENSE SHOULD HE COMMIT ANOTHER MOVING VIOLATION..AFTER HE SITS OUT HIS 3 YEAR SUSPENSION
I have had a Maine license since 2002 and am 22 years old. My driving record isn’t good, however the reason Tina’s Law went into effect for me is absolutely bogus. I had two Operating after Suspension violations prior to my third one which I completely own up to and I know it was stupid. However, after the second time I got caught I realized I needed to stop driving like an *** or I would hurt myself or even worse someone else. So I wasn’t speeding like I normally would have, I was really starting to realize I needed to be responsible. When I moved out west I traded in my Maine license for a CA license.. and didn’t think anything of it. Turns out I was suspended out of NH for not paying a fine and I wasn’t allowed to be issued a license from ANY state. Why CA issued me one and didn’t tell me anything otherwise I have no idea. So I drove from CA to NH (yes, that far) with NO license…?! So ironically 10 minutes after crossing the NH border I get pulled over for a tail light being out, BOOM there’s the third operating after suspension right there which is what triggered my 3 year license loss. How is that fair at all? No one EVER notified me at any address I had that I wasn’t allowed to drive.
My heart goes out to the family of Tina Turcotte, I know how hard it is to loose a loved one. But my case is 10 times different than that of Scott Hewitt, the man who killed her. (Who had I believe somewhere around 40 offenses on his record) I’ve never once caused a car accident, or put someone elses life at risk behind the wheel.
So my point is that this law needs to be re-evaluated so that they can prosecute those who DESERVE to have no license.